White House Calls Ruling Striking Down Health Care Law ‘An Outlier’

The liberal defense of the act basically says that by doing nothing, the uninsured are doing something. That might be true in a semantical sense, because doing nothing IS doing something. But as far as the repercussions of being passive, it’s ridiculous and dangerous to say that by not doing what the government wants, because it doesn’t fit the governments economic plan for all citizens you are subject to being forced. How can these liberals say that this is not communist thinking? It certainly isn’t constitutional, neither in the spirit or the letter of the law. Those exemptions were put in place to protect people, not to be nulified by Harvard semantics. The Judge was spot on and I hope people will read his decision without the filtering of the media.

Posted by: Mike OC | Jan 31, 2011 6:41:21 PM
You misstate the defense of the provision. It goes like this
“Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market. As Congress found, every year millions of people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, shifting tens of billions of dollars in added cost onto those who have insurance and onto taxpayers. There can be no doubt that this activity substantially affects interstate commerce, and Congress has the power to regulate it. ”
I do hope people read the decision, particularly where it cites ReasonTV and makes a Tea Party reference. And if you like the decision and approve of the activism, think twice before you claim to be against activist judges and rulings in the future.
Thanks.

Go ahead, Obama.. Defy the federal order and get the contempt of court charges you deserve.

Progressives hate the limitations placed on government by the constitution. The mandate approach was rejected in 2008 by part time law professor and full time genius to the left, Barry.
Progressives are doing for health care what they have done to education.

i agree with the ruling and what it comes down to is if you want free health care move to Mass.you cant force this on anyone. why should the people of montana pay for an illegal immigrant in california? this is all going down to defeat and we will continue to become a more conservative nation in order to survive an maintain our living standards.you cant reward illegal immigration. if that is resolved first than health care can be addressed. till then all a waste of time.

“Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said “implementation will proceed at pace.”
The judge doesn’t have to order a stop to implementation once he rules it unconstitutional.

Mama,
No where does any government require a person to buy car insurance to cover his own car, just the damages to others. Also, driving is a priviledge, not a right. If I ride a bike to work or take a bus, don’t need auto insurance. If I am healthy and haven’t been to a doctor in years, I still am mandated to buy health insurance? Your auto insurance arguement is a straw man. Nice try.

Judge cites Obama’s own position from 2008 campaign…
OBAMA VS AMERICA

“A hint: Repubs tend to side with big business, in this case big insurance.”
A hint: get your facts straight. Big insurance supported this bill, bigtime.
A further hint: Dems tend to side with unlimited power in the federal government to run our lives.
A final hint: five of the nine Supreme Court justices are Republicans.

I believe that Obama taught constitutional law in college?? Isn’t that a hoot!! Obama loves to play god, there is not a law that he can’t break. I despise the man.

I do not think requiring auto insurance and health insurance are the same thing. Drivers are forced to have insurance, because if through their actions another party is injured in an accident; there are financial amounts normally awarded to same victims.

Gee, i wonder why I had to dig for this story on abc.com. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, what if it were something like having to buy car insurance???? This adminstration in itself in unconstituional, they are nothing but next to the mafia. Pretty pathetic making people purchase insurance except if you can’t afford it, you get a free ride, well, they get a free ride anyway.

There is a lot of unanswered questions behind this law. You know just because the law order’s people to buy insurance doesn’t mean everyone’s going to be able too. What happens to those who can’t afford insurance? Will the poor be put in jail or fined? Jail and fines will hinder ones abilities even further. Then are our hospitals going to start turning down people who don’t have insurance? Socialism is fundamentally non-American and the poor always lose; we all have relatives who fit in this box of the poor if ones self does not. The forefathers of America fought to put an end to socialism and it really hurts my heart to see it creeping back into our country. Socialism is communism. Please find online and read, “The Communist Manifesto” and then form an opinion of socialism. Look into the history of socialism in America. Every socialist movement in the history of America has degraded the area it affected in this God blessed country.

Failed stimulus, failed healthcare reform, failed foreign policy.
Other than that, the guy’s done great.

P Mama wrote:
” People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market. ”
Neither have they opted in.
They may not need to go to the doctor for long periods of time.
Many young healthy single folks CHOOSE not to buy insurance because they are pretty sure they won’t need it right now and dont want to spend the money. It’s a gamble, yes, and statistically most of them will win that gamble.
If they do obtain health care and they don’t have insurance, they can pay for it out of their pocket. If they don’t have the money, they will be paying for it for a long time and get well acquainted with the collection agencies employed by hospitals and doctors.
I know many couples who have gone to the hospital without insurance when it was time to deliver their baby, and gone home with a baby and a bill, which they paid off over time.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

How is unconstitutional an “an outlier”? This is not a popularity contest, it is either constitutionally provided to the Federal Government or it is not!
It seems that New York Senator Schumer thinks the Three Branches of Government are the Senate, House and Executive branch instead of Executive, a Legislature, and a Judiciary.
That is the problem!

“Noting that the judge did not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said “implementation will proceed at pace.”"
Um, not even close. The judge ruled the ENTIRE law unconstitutional. That does not require a stay. That was eeven part of his ruling. That the government cannot follow an unconstitutional law.
Or is the Obama administration above the law?

I do not think requiring auto insurance and health insurance are the same thing. Drivers are forced to have insurance, because if through their actions another party is injured in an accident; there are financial amounts normally awarded to same victims.
Posted by: zaks5thave | Jan 31, 2011 11:46:21 PM
It isn’t the same thing, because you can’t opt out of the health care market unless you die. You can’t just choose not to have a body that could become ill, contagious or injured.
But you can get a contagious disease.
And take a look at Joe White’s comment to me @ 7:25:40 AM. If one is going to claim that people can pay off their bills over time, the same would apply to bills created by causing injury and harm with a vehicle.

Your auto insurance arguement is a straw man. Nice try.
Posted by: Joe | Jan 31, 2011 9:02:42 PM
It isn’t my argument. Nice try.

#1.Driving a car is a not a right; you can loose your license by refusing to take a breat test even though that violates the search and seizure restrictions of the Constitution.You can go bare, but in most states you have to be able to post evidence of being able to cover liability costs.None of that has anything to do with the health mandate.#2 The problem with the health bill is that it is full of constitutionally questionable assumptions that can lead to a global rejection of the bill such as seen yesterday.That is the consequence of a powerful majority ignoring the minority and ramming through a bill that nobody read and that few understood.Simple parlimentary rules that could have been added that could have saved aspects of the bill were not done because of the haste to get it passed. As such,when the final decision comes and the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional,the whole bill will also be declared unconstitutional.

“I do hope people read the decision, particularly where it cites ReasonTV and makes a Tea Party reference. And if you like the decision and approve of the activism, think twice before you claim to be against activist judges and rulings in the future. ”
The decision makes a reference to the original Tea Party and references to this administration’s reading of the power of the commerce clause vs. the Constitution. You are attempting to belittle a huge sticking point in this whole debacle of a bill, one that has finally been rightly decided by someone who cares about how this country was founded.
By mandating someone buy health insurance for the sole reason really that a person is living is completely against the sort of protections enumerated in the Constitution. Granting this mandate under the commerce clause essentially gives Congress and the President to mandate anything for the benefit of the people, as others say “mandating everyone eat broccoli” for instance.
Its’ about time someone puts a stop to this runaway clause that seems to be able to regulate everything we do.
Incidentally, the judge’s decision also references Obama’s own statements from the 2008 campaingn trail when he was opposed to a mandate,as the judge cites, “If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,” hat tip ProfessorBainbridge.

“It isn’t the same thing, because you can’t opt out of the health care market unless you die. You can’t just choose not to have a body that could become ill, contagious or injured. ”
That is what freedom and insurance is all about though. One can choose not to have insurance because they are willing to take the risk that they won’t get sick. The problem arises because we no longer accept the premise of taking responsibilty for one’s actions.

Posted by: J.R. | Feb 1, 2011 11:11:57 AM
What are you talking about? I was talking about what I consider a major difference between mandatory car insurance and health care insurance. You can choose to opt out of the auto market, limiting the need for auto insurance– don’t drive at all, don’t drive on public roads, don’t buy a car, don’t get a driver license. You can’t choose to opt out of the having a body that could get ill or injured market.
So what are you talking about? You’re going backwards in the case you want to make— because requiring you to have car insurance if you have a car does limit freedom and limit your ability to take the risk that nothing will happen.
Where do you really want to go with this? Do you have any idea?

“You can’t choose to opt out of the having a body that could get ill or injured market. ”
That’s not a market mama, and one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Continuing to make comparisons is pointless and just plain ignorant.

Continuing to make comparisons is pointless and just plain ignorant.
Posted by: J.R. | Feb 1, 2011 11:51:56 AM
Ah, the last refuge… uh, uh, uh…. I project!
lol.

“That’s not a market mama.”
So, it shouldn’t be treated like one?

“So, it shouldn’t be treated like one?”
Tell that to the government. They argued that it is.

“So, it shouldn’t be treated like one?”
Tell that to the government. They argued that it is.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 1, 2011 12:21:06 PM
So have Republicans. I was wondering if J.R. was willing to think independently. I’m doubtful.
lol.

“So, it shouldn’t be treated like one?”
Tell that to the government. They argued that it is.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 1, 2011 12:21:06 PM
Republicans too. Tea partiers. J.R. in the past.
Change of opinion?

“Change of opinion?”
Why not? Much like the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

“Please, please: would some supporter of Obamacare cite me to the case in which the Supreme Court has ever held that the commerce power extends this far?”
I think you’re looking into this too deeply.

ha! Just read this via twitter:
“I assume Egyptians are protesting for lower taxes on the rich and less health care, the main uprising demands worldwide.”
Only in America, darlin’.Only in America.
Posted by: progressive mama
A fine example of the assume doctrine.
You know a large percentage of Egyptians support sharia law. Think you could make that subservient-to-all-men thing work for you pmama?

“to uphold [the mandate] via application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would [be to] . . . effectively remove all limits on federal power.” Page 62.
Problematic.
___________________
Posted by: ProMa
W O W !
That would be a problem, no limits on federal power!
I’m glad you see that as a problem ProMa.
Your status here just went up 2 notches.

“Ah, the last refuge… uh, uh, uh…. I project!”
Not really, merely suggesting that any comparison of health insurance and auto insurance is comical. It is dead on arrival. No projection involved, continuing to use it is just ignorant.
“Because citing ReasonTV, campaign rhetoric, a hate group and giving shout outs to activist groups is so focused narrowly on the principles of the Constitution (in someone’s world anyway!) ”
Yep, because that entire written decision was based solely on political rhetoric. Well done on your part.

“”So, it shouldn’t be treated like one?”
Tell that to the government. They argued that it is.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 1, 2011 12:21:06 PM
So have Republicans. I was wondering if J.R. was willing to think independently. I’m doubtful. ”
Nice jab. So seriously, I was just thinking of trading in the “having a body that could get ill or injured” market. Where do I find that?

Posted by: J.R. | Feb 1, 2011 1:48:53 PM
So it shouldn’t be treated like a market then?

“Indeed,” wrote Vinson, “I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.’”

“As a rule, it’s better for judges to sever the portions (they dislike),” McKenna said. “They’re not there to be legislators….I still think the better view is that an (individual) mandate can be severed.”
Although Vinson broaches that issue in his ruling:
“The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. “Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended.” Russello v. United States….Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’ own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was “unclear” if the individual mandate had “solid constitutional foundation.” See CRS Analysis, supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress’ failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.”

Posted by: J.R. | Feb 1, 2011 2:04:13 PM
So you agree with Vinson and disagree with McKenna, Orin Kerr, and ultimately, Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts who, as Simon Lazarus puts it, “will have to twist their prior decisions and statements into pretzels in order to rule the individual mandate or other ACA provisions unconstitutional.”
It was an overreach. And activist.

J.R., I should have said he either overreached on his decision not to sever the individual mandate or after devoting about ten pages (63-74) to hammering home the mandate’s necessity, became very weak on necessary and proper; i.e. Vinson didn’t offer a convincing explanation of why rejecting the “necessary and proper” defense is consistent with recent Supreme Court opinions.

Fascist Hyena, it is not true that big insurance wanted this bill. They spent millions on advertising trying to stop it. They spent lots more in campaign contributions to those legislators loudly proclaiming they would repeal it.
This bill will cut their administrative costs from 35% to 21%, and apparently they don’t want to tighten their belts to give more patient care at the expense of their huge salaries. By the way, Medicare spends 4% of premiums on administrative costs. That is why so many Americans want a one-payer system, too much of our premiums go to line someone’s pocket instead of being spent on patient care.
Medicare for all would suit me just fine.

Ruth L. it would be more accurate to say that health insurance companies are playing god, as they reject people for pre-existing conditions, deny money for operations or treatments based on phony claims and charge so much that millions can’t afford insurance. Thank goodness the Health Care Law stops them from their worst offenses against fellow Americans.
Did you know that over 40,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance? Just think about that number and then ask yourself who is playing god.

Quinton Joiner, Communism is not Socialism. Socialism is not Communism. Kindly read wikipedia’s description of both to get a better understanding of how very, very different they are.
Our forefathers didn’t fight socialism, they fought against taxation without representation. Socialism didn’t exist here or in England. Sheesh.

It doesn’t make sense to say people can pay off their bills over time.
First, the hospital needs their money to pay their bills, their salaries, etc. now not over a span of years, just like any other business or they will fold.
Secondly, there are many people who wouldn’t ever be able to repay a big hospital bill, as for cancer treatment, on their salary. So the hospital has to pass on the cost to the rest of us or go out of business.
Thirdly, after working in a hospital for years, the quality of care you will receive may be the same in the emergency room for insured and uninsured but any kind of illness requiring many treatments or a non-emergency operation, you will definitely not get the same quality of care. That is one of the reasons why over 40,000 uninsured Americans die every year. The other reason is the uninsured hesitate to go to the doctor or hospital because they fear a huge bill, and that hesitation lets the illness or injury become fatal.
40,000 Americans, think about that if you are a patriot.
Thirdly,

Posted by: J.R. | Feb 1, 2011 2:30:15 PM
Yep, a footnote that right wingers keep citing and that I keep pointing out just adds to the perception of a political decision by an activist judge.

Foghorn Leghorn,
Why the heck would any state that cares about its citizens want to refuse mandates on levels of coverage with half of all bankruptcies due to insured people with uncovered medical bills? Why would any state not want all their citizens to have insurance when over 40,000 Americans die each year because they couldn’t afford insurance?
Does patriotism only extend to empathy for those Americans killed by terrorists or horrible accidents and not to those who die because they couldn’t afford insurance? Over 40,000 Americans every year, think about it.

Lydia,the mere fact that there are serious constitutional and legal issues associated with this bill reveals it to be bad legislation.Nobody vetted it; a decent bill would not get serious legal challenges,although political challenges might occur.Wanting to improve coverage by pushing extra- legal means is not in the best interests of those that supposedly would be helped by this bill.

foghorn leghorn, since the days of Roosevelt, the insurance industry has blocked legislation to improve insurance for consumers. It is a very powerful industry.
Look how long the tobacco industry hid the truth about the harm of smoking? Never underestimate the power of greed.

progressive mama, I frequently learn wonderful historic facts from your posts. Thanks!

Noz, what I consider a “bad thing” is sloppy, political decisions by judges. For example, Vinson’s tea party ruling had gaping holes and I’m glad it got ripped by the people I mentioned @ 12:21:14 PM (Erwin Chemerinsky, dean, University of California, Irvine, School of Law; Timothy Jost, professor at Washington & Lee Law School; Gillian Metzger, professor at Columbia Law School;Prof. Mark Hall’s at Concurring Opinions; Simon Lazarus and… adding on…
by Rick Hill at “Judge Vinson’s incoherent extension of Printz’s anti-commandeering principle from states to private persons” (he calls it a “train wreck of Necessary & Proper reasoning” and asks “How can a means that is conceded to be necessary for a legitimate end not be within Congress’ implied powers to pursue that end?” Good question, right)?
Orin Kerr also thinks it’s weak, and so do many, many others. It is not a sensible, well-reasoned and well-written decision without huge gaps, though I understand partisans who love activist judges will be thrilled.

“Erwin Chemerinsky”
A committed left-wing ideologue and buffoon, his critique amounts to a total of zero. He is the clown who represented Joe Wilson and Valerie Jarrett and actually thought he was going to win.
Not one critic has met the decision on the merits. Not one critic has cited a single Supreme Court decision holding that the commerce clause power extends as far as Obamacare would take it.
Mama, I think you had better bone up a bit on what federal district judges do. They do exactly what Judge Vinson did–the apply the law to matters at the trial court level, and the rule on the matter at hand.

ProMa, I couldn’t tell if you answered my question or not.

“And Vinson won’t be.” Of course not. He’s a 70-year-old white male.
I boned up on Necessary and Proper under Paul Freund.
For those who are interested, let me tell you what happens next. The govt. applies to the 11th Circuit for a stay of the ruling pending appeal, which will be granted. That’s an absolute certainty, and when it happens it will not be a signal about how the appeals court views the merits.

I don’t recall Chermerinsky et al. complaining about the “politics” in the decisions by district judge Vaughn Walker invalidating CA’s Prop. 8 (gay marriage), or district judge Virginia Phillips striking down Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Walker invalidated a state constitutional amendment approved by millions of Californians at the ballot box. Phillips invalidated a congressional enactment. No complaints back then.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Feb 1, 2011 8:13:44 PM
I don’t recall Chermerinsky representing Valerie Jarrett as you misstated (Valerie Plame Wilson).
As for the part about buffoons… always, the last resort with you all… uh, uh, uh… I project! Meanwhile, he is very successful. We’ve actually heard of him (but I realize he has written widely in support of the constitutionality of the health care law and the individual mandate, and he’s considered an expert so of course you have to try to malign him… when you can’t take on his statement, malign the messenger)
I listed other people as well:Timothy Jost, Gillian Metzge, Mark Hall, Simon Lazarus, Orin Kerr and Rick Hill at “Judge Vinson’s incoherent extension of Printz’s anti-commandeering principle from states to private persons” (he calls it a “train wreck of Necessary & Proper reasoning” and asks “How can a means that is conceded to be necessary for a legitimate end not be within Congress’ implied powers to pursue that end?” Good question, right)?
I DO understand that partisans who love activist judges will be thrilled. I really do.

Grow up and wise up, Mama. Of course leftists like Cermerinsky will criticize the decision, even as conservatives rejoice. It sheds no light at all to describe a decision as “judicial activism”–that’s just a term used by the losing side, and I defy you to assign to it a meaning that won’t include decisions despised by both political parties..
The remarkable thing about the crticisms thus far is that none of them disagrees with anything Judge Vinson has to say about the cases and other authorities on which nhe relies. More glaringly, not one critic dares offer a suggestion as to the existence, let alone the location, of any restriction on congessional power.
And you’re right: I momentarily confused the publicity-seeking low-level CIA functionary who, along with the hapless Chermerinsky, got laughed out of court with the inept Obama crony who just asked a uniformed American General to fetch her a glass of wine.

Republicans only hate activist judges when they rule for the rights of the poor and working man, or for personal rights like abortion or gay marriage.
Posted by: Frank Provasek | Feb 2, 2011 1:35:14 AM
I know. They’re so obvious! The hypocrisy is so blatant.

Lydia wrote:
“That is one of the reasons why over 40,000 uninsured Americans die every year.”
when will liberals stop using bogus numbers?
The so-called study that you refer to isn’t scientific at all.
They didnt even check whether the subjects that died had health insurance at the time of death. They simply assumed it since they had been uninsured at an earlier time in their life.

Barack Obama on the campaign trail, 2008:
“[Hillary would] have the government force every individual to buy insurance, and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance. It’s that they can’t afford it …
“Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody buy a house, and that, you know, and that would solve, you know, the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”

“Republicans only hate activist judges when they rule for the rights of the poor and working man, or for personal rights like abortion or gay marriage.”
I can’t tell you whether I hate activist judges until you tell me what an activist judge is.
The Supreme Court majority ruled in favor of the personal right to bear arms. I didn’t hate that ruling, but you’ll have to tell me whether it was an activist one or not.

Posted by: Joe White | Feb 2, 2011 7:59:13 AM
Brilliant legal analysis, Joe. We’ve all gained so much from it.
Unfortunately, I have a lot more snow to move around now .Otherwise, wow, I’d love to talk how to constitutionality of provisions with you, and how to tweak them.
Yep. Enlightening. Wow. Such a scholar.

It was a footnote to his ruling.